Culture » April 25, 2018

Universal Basic Income: A Primer

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

u·ni·ver·sal ba·sic in·come

noun

1. A regular lump sum given unconditionally to all

We might demand a basic income not so that we can have, do or be what we already want, do or are, but because it might allow us to consider and experiment with different kinds of lives.” — Marxist Feminist Kathi Weeks in her 2011 book, The Problem With Work

Some (not all) progressive economists worry that a universal basic income (UBI) could lead to inflation, especially if people quit their jobs to loaf. Advocates suggest loafing isn’t so bad—many are overworked under capitalism, often producing things no one really needs. And besides, they say, previous UBI experiments suggest most would still work. When residents of Dauphin, Canada, were given an above-poverty income, most kept their jobs but also spent more time with their families. Hospitalizations and domestic violence decreased. As French ecosocialist André Gorz suggested, a UBI allows us to both work and consume “less and better,” giving us more time for leisure, art and relationships.

Where would the money come from?

Proposals include taxes on high incomes, financial transactions, land, pollution and more. Some suggest nationalizing resources and paying a dividend on the profits. (Alaska does this with its oil.) Others say that U.S. federal budget deficits don’t actually matter, and the government can simply pay for things.

Could a UBI actually happen?

It almost did. There were several UBI experiments in the 1960s and 1970s—including in Dauphin—and Congress considered legislation. But as the country drifted rightward, momentum died. (Another blow: one analysis of a UBI trial erroneously reported a rise in divorces, producing much pearl-clutching.) Today, governments from Ontario, Canada, to Finland are again experimenting. Private charities are finding that giving poor people cash can be more effective than conventional aid programs. A U.S. company that invests in startups is running its own UBI test across three states.

Didn't Milton Friedman support this?

UBI attracts strange bedfellows. Some libertarians support a modest UBI—below the poverty line—to replace welfare. Progressives worry that could be a Trojan horse for wider cuts. Most leftist UBI advocates favor something expansive enough to end poverty and decouple basic subsistence from work. This ultimately takes power from the bosses, who would no longer be able to use the threat of poverty to force people into unjust working conditions—and gives labor a permanent strike fund.

Get the money from the wealthy people and corporations considering the fact that they have been taking our money by hook or crook and not using it wisely for the last 38 years.

Posted by DDRLSGC on 2018-05-06 11:54:23

The universal basic income was advanced by Milton Friedman in his 1960 book, Capitalism and Freedom. I performed an undergraduate independent study on the program and even interviewed Professor Friedman at his offices (then, University of Chicago). A man as brilliant as he was kind and generous. Many socialist like to claim the concept, but the notion was greatly advanced by a man so devoted to capitalism and individual liberty. His concept was labeled the "Negative income Tax" which would reward people with payments instead of taxes, until they reached a minimum level of income above the poverty line. His concept was to make certain that people still retained personal choice in their spending of their income, as opposed to government dictates - such as food stamps, rent subsidies or other targeted program designed to employ as many bureaucrats as the people it allegedly served.

Posted by Snow Monkey on 2018-05-01 12:40:00

I strongly believe in this. I think it would be incredibly beneficial, and I don't think people would laze about all day doing nothing. Quite the opposite, actually.

Posted by Jaime Heidel on 2018-04-28 20:01:28

The question of "Where would the money come from?" is a key issue, and needs to be better explored whenever this larger topic is discussed. More than a century ago, some smart people realized that our modern society, with automation and other newly-developed processes, could create great wealth: products, food, etc., without that much labor being needed (much less than in the past). This wealth, generated by our society as a whole, should be shared. Perhaps as a universal income, but also to pay for services that would include useful interactions of individuals helping other individuals, as needed, in our communities. Work that is not rushed, happy, and beneficial. Why not?

Posted by Steve in DC on 2018-04-28 13:00:49

Here's my suggestion re UBI:

$18,000 per year tax free ($1,500 per month) for all 150 million citizens age 18 and older not on Social Security and $5,000 extra per year ($417 per month) for all 50 million on Social Security.

Total cost would be $3 trillion funded by:1) $1.2 trillion from a 3% annual tax on the $40 trillion in wealth held by the wealthiest 1% (minimum net worth of about $8 million). The wealth of this group has grown at about 6% compounded since 1980 so they should continue to get wealthier even after the tax....but just not as fast as before.2) $1.3 trillion from a 10% surtax on all income (including all investment income but excluding Social Security income).3) $0.5 trillion from eliminating all non-healthcare welfare type spending....no longer needed because of the $18,000 basic income ($36,000 for a two adult citizen household).

A one-adult household would have to be earning over $180,000 to come out behind on this deal.........pay $18,000 extra in tax (the 10% surtax) but receive $18,000 tax free in basic income. A two-adult household would have to be earning $360,000 or more to come out worse

Some side benefits:a) Barring excessive immigration and/or increasing trade deficits, the labor market would tighten and wages and salaries would increase with many choosing not to work or choosing to work fewer hours. It would be easier to find a good paying job.b) GDP (and thus tax revenue) would increase with a much wealthier customer base.c) The debt and debt/GDP ratio would be lower than otherwise because of "b" above and because total income and the wealth of the wealthiest 1% (the sources of revenue for the UBI) would surely grow faster than the 0.8% annual growth rate of the citizen population.

Posted by martman1 on 2018-04-28 11:13:33

I'd be more inclined to support a minimum income if there were a maximum income or at least a maximum spread between lowest paid and highest paid people.